# Fire Gruden, Keep RGIII?



## PeoplesElbow

> Less than a year after a showdown over Robert Griffin III, another appears to be brewing. Jay Gruden’s desire to part ways with the ineffective quarterback may put him at odds with owner Daniel Snyder and President and General Manager Bruce Allen, potentially leaving the Washington Redskins searching for a coach yet again.



I think the Redskins need to go with Lane Kiffin for their new coach.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...b622f0-7d67-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html


----------



## Larry Gude

Gibbs III


----------



## rhenderson

IMO:

Sports writers/analysts have to fill columns/air time - and it needs to attract readers/viewers.  

If Snyder fires Gruden he will never be able to hire a coach that has a chance of success.  

QB support on a team is like water behind a dam.  Once there's a crack in the dam it doesn't take long for the entire structure to fail.  Team mates are now admitting a lack of confidence and personal dislike of Griffin and his attitude.

Cooke, Beathard, and Gibbs turned the franchise into a Pro sports cash cow.  The fans from that era have continued to make the franchise profitable - however, they are leaving the fold after the last twenty years of irrelevance.  In the 80's, fans would build their game day schedule around  game time - today many of those fans consider a Skins game as a fall back if they have nothing better to do.


----------



## Larry Gude

rhenderson said:


> IMO:
> 
> Sports writers/analysts have to fill columns/air time - and it needs to attract readers/viewers.
> 
> If Snyder fires Gruden he will never be able to hire a coach that has a chance of success.
> 
> QB support on a team is like water behind a dam.  Once there's a crack in the dam it doesn't take long for the entire structure to fail.  Team mates are now admitting a lack of confidence and personal dislike of Griffin and his attitude.
> 
> Cooke, Beathard, and Gibbs turned the franchise into a Pro sports cash cow.  The fans from that era have continued to make the franchise profitable - however, they are leaving the fold after the last twenty years of irrelevance.  In the 80's, fans would build their game day schedule around  game time - today many of those fans consider a Skins game as a fall back if they have nothing better to do.



Here's where I differ; Cooke and co didn't turn it into a cash cow. TV did that. The DC area is simply a great place for an NFL team. The winning they did certainly helped but, the Redskins before them and now were always a DC institution, win or lose. My horse, the dumber one, could run the Redskins and they'd still be among the top earning teams. Look at how awful they've been under Dan. Money is zero issue and we've been an also ran team for well over a decade now. 

This is one of my issues with Snyder; his skill set is promotion and marketing and the Skins need NONE. Firing Gruden fits in nicely with the whole Snyder way; a promotional event. Fire Turner. Hire Marty. Fire Marty. Spurrier. Gibbs II. Zorn. Shanahan. Gruden. He has been unable to hire a coach on the way up, Gibbs I, since he fired Marty. No one who is about winning wants to be here. He's never get a Bilicheck or a Pete Carol or a Harbaugh or John Gruden or a Parcells or anyone like that because Dan wants to be part of it and it simply doesn't work. His involvement is a detriment time and time again. Jerry Jones at least has credibility as an ex player. Every single person who comes here knows there will be Dan's pets and that is not conducive to winning in the NFL. It is destructive of it.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

rhenderson said:


> IMO:
> 
> If Snyder fires Gruden he will never be able to hire a coach that has a chance of success.



Where have you been for a decade?


----------



## Escalade14

I say package the whole team up and ship them via FedEx to Loserburg


----------



## b23hqb

Trade with the Bucs straight up - Gruden for Smith (you keep Griffin) - and we both should be better teams.


----------



## PsyOps

I've given up.  I watch now just for the entertainment value.  And are they ever entertaining.


----------



## huntr1

I wish they had benched RG3 for the rest of the pointless season, let him FULLY heal, keep him practicing and developing.  He's a good QB, but until they protect him and protect his health by letting him fully heal from his injuries, then they're setting him up for failure.

Gruden is a good coach.  Need to keep him too.


----------



## kom526

Snyder/Allen should have pursued Darrell Bevel for HC, but Allen wants to recreate the 'magic' that he had in TB.


----------



## Larry Gude

huntr1 said:


> I wish they had benched RG3 for the rest of the pointless season, let him FULLY heal, keep him practicing and developing.  He's a good QB, but until they protect him and protect his health by letting him fully heal from his injuries, then they're setting him up for failure.
> 
> Gruden is a good coach.  Need to keep him too.



I don't see how RGIII is a 'good' quarterback. His fault, no ones fault, his rookie season was a fluke and NFL defenses are all too happy to see him run knowing he'll be out of the game before long. Other teams that feature the read option, Seattle, Wilson is MUCH better suited to it than Robert AND has a good O line and a great D. The 49'ers did not win the SB with Kaepernick and won't even make the playoffs this year with a good O line and great D. It's a gimmick offense especially if you get hurt most every time you take off. Wilson is the only guy making it work and he's on a great team.

So, to 'good' QB. What are the criteria? 

Accuracy. Roberts not in the top half of starters when it comes to accuracy. He's not even the most accurate on this team.

Skill, fundamentals. He's awful. 

Both of those are not the fault of injuries or how he's been coached and handled. 

The things the team has messed up, his development, the biggest thing we hear about the success of a QB is his ability to read and react and Robert is really awful there as well but, it can be argued that had he been sat from day one and allowed to grow into understanding and doing well in the pro game, he'd have gotten it, maybe even by now. I don't see any sign of that but, it's an argument. 

But, that's not what he was brought in for. He was brought in to start day one by an owner who thinks in terms of promotion and not team. The HUGE mistake was all those picks. There is no team around him, or whomever is gonna play the position. The Skins O and D lines are mid pack, at best, and that is where any good team starts, O and D line. So, the whole thing becomes academic as NO QB in the league is going to make this team better because he'll end up beat to death as well in addition to not having help from a dominant D and, worst of all, the current coach, Gruden, thinks Robert is the third best QB on the team.  

It's just another Dan Snyder mess. If Snyder insists on keeping RGIII, I guess we'll find out if he can round himself into a better QB. The prospects of more depth and two good lines doesn't seem good. It takes several years to do that. Minimum. On teams that are committed to it. So, does Snyder tell his coach he has to keep working with Robert and Gruden and then it turns out RGIII simply is not that good and next season is more of the same? Does Snyder risk having a coach who is just cashing a check because he doesn't believe in what the team is doing? Does Snyder can the coach and deal with anyone willing to take the job knowing the owner decides who will play QB? 

I mean, maybe you're right. Snyder's gotta see all these other teams doing well with unknowns or disfavored QB's. Maybe RGIII is really a good qb and will come around.


----------



## Escalade14

Good coaches don't have only 3 wins in a season. Nothing you do will help the team, as they are just a team that's broken beyond repair. IMO, why not get the team to cease operations and become a defunct organization and the NFL creates a new team in Los Angeles. And keep Snyder far, far away. All he sees is marketing hype and dollar signs.


----------



## Larry Gude

Escalade14 said:


> Good coaches don't have only 3 wins in a season. Nothing you do will help the team, as they are just a team that's broken beyond repair. IMO, why not get the team to cease operations and become a defunct organization and the NFL creates a new team in Los Angeles. And keep Snyder far, far away. All he sees is marketing hype and dollar signs.



How do you propose to do that? They make a ton of money, Snyder is liked by the other owners for his promotional ideas and the dough they generate and they LOVE being able to pick up 10-13 wins against us every year. 

In terms of business, the Skins will not be an issue unless people stop going to the games.


----------



## SG_Player1974

The Deadskins WILL bring in Harbaugh..... bank on it!


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> The Deadskins WILL bring in Harbaugh..... bank on it!



That's a stupid idea...

...so, you're probably right...


----------



## SG_Player1974

Larry Gude said:


> That's a stupid idea...
> 
> ...so, you're probably right...



I'm thinking more along the lines of a very successful head coach (3-straight NFC championships) with front office problems....

Match made in heaven!


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> I'm thinking more along the lines of a very successful head coach (3-straight NFC championships) with front office problems....
> 
> Match made in heaven!



Snyder, to his credit, did what I think is the right thing this past year; he actually tried to find the next great coach by hiring an up and coming OC. He had not tried that, not once prior. 
Letting Norv go before end of season was dumb. Spurrier was a dumb idea. Getting rid of Marty was dumb. Gibbs II was really dumb. Zorn was uber dumb and the Shanahan Plan was dumb. The only one of those that was going to work in terms of being a consistently good team was Marty. I like his choice of Gruden. Now, tell the guy you'll fire him if he doesn't win and sooner rather than later and let the guy be the damn coach and get the F out of the way. 

Harbaugh could be a great pick or just another disaster. None of it matters if Snyder won't get the F out of the way.


----------



## GregV814

Escalade14 said:


> I say package the whole team up and ship them via FedEx to Loserburg




No UPS them to St. Louis where they can live in harmony with the "hands up dont shoot" Rams and local insurgents there....Give us a 2nd string high school team from DMV. They will do a better job...


----------



## Larry Gude

GregV814 said:


> N ...Give us a 2nd string high school team from DMV. They will do a better job...



Ok, now, we're just getting silly. The NFL is hyper competitive and the real difference between winning and losing, week in and week out is very, very small. Typically, it's a couple of plays a game one team makes, the other doesn't. Even the Patriots, as good as they are and have been, don't even make the Super bowl ever year, let alone win it and no one thinks this will continue past Tom Brady and a season or career ending injury. One play. 

Certainly, the better teams do most of the little things a little better most of the time and get a better player on the team or get a little more out of a not as good player but, again, the real difference, at least in terms of talent and skill is pretty small other than a few key stars here and there. RGIII is a much better player, perception wise, if he plays for the Pats and Brady, all of a sudden, stinks if he plays for us. No college team has a prayer, no college all star team has a prayer against the Redskins or Jags or anyone else in the NFL. Not a prayer. They probably wouldn't get many first downs let alone score and they could not even slow down the worst offense in the NFL. 

Just saying...


----------



## Beta

PeoplesElbow said:


> I think the Redskins need to go with Lane Kiffin for their new coach.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...b622f0-7d67-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html




Lane Kiffin?  Good one.



Larry Gude said:


> Ok, now, we're just getting silly. The NFL is hyper competitive and the real difference between winning and losing, week in and week out is very, very small. Typically, it's a couple of plays a game one team makes, the other doesn't. Even the Patriots, as good as they are and have been, don't even make the Super bowl ever year, let alone win it and no one thinks this will continue past Tom Brady and a season or career ending injury. One play.
> 
> Certainly, the better teams do most of the little things a little better most of the time and get a better player on the team or get a little more out of a not as good player but, again, the real difference, at least in terms of talent and skill is pretty small other than a few key stars here and there. RGIII is a much better player, perception wise, if he plays for the Pats and Brady, all of a sudden, stinks if he plays for us. No college team has a prayer, no college all star team has a prayer against the Redskins or Jags or anyone else in the NFL. Not a prayer. They probably wouldn't get many first downs let alone score and they could not even slow down the worst offense in the NFL.
> 
> Just saying...



I'd consider an argument where a college all-star team could compete against the worst NFL team.  You're talking 1st-round talent against an NFL team that's probably filled with a bunch of players that were low round picks, maybe a couple of stars here and there.  Strength may be the biggest factor that would give the game to the NFL team, but times have changed.  Every season you see a bunch of rookies that are able to really COMPETE with the NFL.  Sometimes people argue they're new so teams need a year to learn them, but if you're talking a 1-time game then that's going to be the same case.  So I see no reason why rookies (or college all-stars who are about to go pro) who come to the NFL and have great success would struggle against a lowly NFL team.  10+ years ago that's a good case, but TODAY, that's bogus.

That being said, parody reigns in the NFL and it's a QB driven league.  You're right that RGIII probably isn't a top tier QB so the Skins probably need to move on.  I'd give him until the end of his contract to prove it though, BUT I'd try to find another QB this offseason.  I'd definitely give him this year since Cousins & McCoy aren't the answer either, so it makes the most sense to give the job to the guy who cost the most in assets.  You HAVE to try to make it work considering the bounty the Rams got for RGIII (and then mocked the Skins with in their recent game).


----------



## Grumpy

Beta said:


> That being said, parody reigns in the NFL



Only when it comes to the skins, an SNL skit is looming, I guess...


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Beta said:


> Lane Kiffin?  Good one.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd consider an argument where a college all-star team could compete against the worst NFL team.  You're talking 1st-round talent against an NFL team that's probably filled with a bunch of players that were low round picks, maybe a couple of stars here and there.  Strength may be the biggest factor that would give the game to the NFL team, but times have changed.  Every season you see a bunch of rookies that are able to really COMPETE with the NFL.  Sometimes people argue they're new so teams need a year to learn them, but if you're talking a 1-time game then that's going to be the same case.  So I see no reason why rookies (or college all-stars who are about to go pro) who come to the NFL and have great success would struggle against a lowly NFL team.  10+ years ago that's a good case, but TODAY, that's bogus.
> 
> That being said, parody reigns in the NFL and it's a QB driven league.  You're right that RGIII probably isn't a top tier QB so the Skins probably need to move on.  I'd give him until the end of his contract to prove it though, BUT I'd try to find another QB this offseason.  I'd definitely give him this year since Cousins & McCoy aren't the answer either, so it makes the most sense to give the job to the guy who cost the most in assets.  You HAVE to try to make it work considering the bounty the Rams got for RGIII (and then mocked the Skins with in their recent game).



The primary difference is the mount of practice that is allowed.  College rules limit the amount of practice to 20 hrs/week,  this is why you see so much blown coverage etc in college games even with very good teams.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Larry Gude said:


> I don't see how RGIII is a 'good' quarterback. His fault, no ones fault, his rookie season was a fluke and NFL defenses are all too happy to see him run knowing he'll be out of the game before long. Other teams that feature the read option, Seattle, Wilson is MUCH better suited to it than Robert AND has a good O line and a great D. The 49'ers did not win the SB with Kaepernick and won't even make the playoffs this year with a good O line and great D. It's a gimmick offense especially if you get hurt most every time you take off. Wilson is the only guy making it work and he's on a great team.



I think Pittsburgh with Ben could make it work,  he is really hard to take down,  maybe the veer or flexbone.


----------



## Larry Gude

PeoplesElbow said:


> I think Pittsburgh with Ben could make it work,  he is really hard to take down,  maybe the veer or flexbone.



Ben is an extraordinary QB. Robert was and is not. Am I missing the point here???


----------



## FireBrand

Let's now trade Bobby Trey to Cuba for a couple of outstanding baseball players.


----------



## Larry Gude

FireBrand said:


> Let's now trade Bobby Trey to Cuba for a couple of outstanding baseball players.



Your optimism is admirable. It really is.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Larry Gude said:


> Ben is an extraordinary QB. Robert was and is not. Am I missing the point here???



I don't think the option style offenses should be dismissed so readily is all.  I've never really considered Ben an elite QB,  play maker yes.  From his interviews he really doesn't consider himself an elite passer either.


----------



## Larry Gude

PeoplesElbow said:


> From his interviews he really doesn't consider himself an elite passer either.



Only when it matters.


----------



## Larry Gude

PeoplesElbow said:


> I don't think the option style offenses should be dismissed so readily is all.  .




Gimmick. Wilson won a Superbowl with it and he was on an elite team, top to bottom. ANY D coordinator relished the chance to get hits on QB's. Especially when all his db's are subject to arrest and deportation for even looking at a WR.


----------



## Monello

Larry Gude said:


> db's are subject to arrest and deportation for even looking at a WR.



Obama said they could stay.


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> Obama said they could stay.



"If I had a son, he'd look like Richard Sherman...."


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Larry Gude said:


> Gimmick. Wilson won a Superbowl with it and he was on an elite team, top to bottom. ANY D coordinator relished the chance to get hits on QB's. Especially when all his db's are subject to arrest and deportation for even looking at a WR.



Without all of the rule changes that favor the wide receivers of the last 20 years I think NFL offences would be more varied or at least more run oriented.  All of those rule changes to make the games more exciting pointed the NFL offenses in the direction they are in today.


----------



## Larry Gude

PeoplesElbow said:


> Without all of the rule changes that favor the wide receivers of the last 20 years I think NFL offences would be more varied or at least more run oriented.  All of those rule changes to make the games more exciting pointed the NFL offenses in the direction they are in today.



Oh, no doubt. It's really absurd. Dan Marino put up 2014 numbers 30 years ago. What would he do today, 6,000 yard seasons? 70 TD's? I remember one season he lit us up in the opener and threw, IIRC, 5 TD's and we were a good team but, helpless, really.


----------



## SG_Player1974

How many times does it have to be proven that you DO NOT need a top caliber... hell, even a decent QB to win!

Does anyone remember the 2000 Ravens with Dilfer?

Does anyone remember the 2007 New York Giants? (If ANYONE thinks that Eli is an elite QB...... )


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> How many times does it have to be proven that you DO NOT need a top caliber... hell, even a decent QB to win!
> 
> Does anyone remember the 2000 Ravens with Dilfer?
> 
> Does anyone remember the 2007 New York Giants? (If ANYONE thinks that Eli is an elite QB...... )




OK but, the 2000 Raven's probably would have won with ANYONE at QB. You can't build that dominant a D anymore, not with the new rules. And the Eli Giants also had fantastic D's and you can do a lot worse than Eli as your QB. The guy is durable, makes big plays at big times, and is a competitor. 

You need a GOOD qb. I understand the interest in RGIII but, he was much longer on potential than real world pro style experience.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Larry Gude said:


> OK but, the 2000 Raven's probably would have won with ANYONE at QB. You can't build that dominant a D anymore, not with the new rules. And the Eli Giants also had fantastic D's and you can do a lot worse than Eli as your QB. *The guy is durable, makes big plays at big times, and is a competitor.*
> 
> You need a GOOD qb. I understand the interest in RGIII but, he was much longer on potential than real world pro style experience.



The guy is "durable" because he doesn't hang in the pocket like top tier QBs do. If he hears footsteps, he either throws it at the feet of the nearest back OR he heaves it out of bounds.

He doesn't make BIG plays.... unless you mean that he throws the ball in the air with the hopes that miracles will happen (i.e. the helmet catch in the SB) You can constantly see how he is heavily dependent on his receivers to pull his arse out of the fire.


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> The guy is "durable" because he doesn't hang in the pocket like top tier QBs do. If he hears footsteps, he either throws it at the feet of the nearest back OR he heaves it out of bounds.
> 
> He doesn't make BIG plays.... unless you mean that he throws the ball in the air with the hopes that miracles will happen (i.e. the helmet catch in the SB) You can constantly see how he is heavily dependent on his receivers to pull his arse out of the fire.



Is winning SB's the measure or no? Yes, it is. Now, if you'd like to argue they win those two with a lesser QB, be my guest. As a Skins fan, I've seen how good the guy can be. :shrug:


----------



## Pete

All you "Keep RGIII" guys said the same about Jason Campbell.  Look how he prospered once he left.


----------



## Larry Gude

Pete said:


> All you "Keep RGIII" guys said the same about Jason Campbell.  Look how he prospered once he left.



I'd be happy if we all just agreed no QB is going to do well unless and until we have two solid lines to start with.


----------



## Hank

They were talking Cutler today on talk radio since he just got benched.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

SG_Player1974 said:


> How many times does it have to be proven that you DO NOT need a top caliber... hell, even a decent QB to win!
> 
> Does anyone remember the 2000 Ravens with Dilfer?
> 
> Does anyone remember the 2007 New York Giants? (If ANYONE thinks that Eli is an elite QB...... )



Dilfer was the most underrated QB I have ever seen.  The guy just won games and everyone hated him I never understood that.


----------



## Monello

SG_Player1974 said:


> Does anyone remember the 2007 New York Giants? (If ANYONE thinks that Eli is an elite QB...... )



The football giants were 2 plays away from being the Buffalo bills.  Dave Tyree's catch & Wes Welker's dropped pass.  The NY D was the MVP of the first of those 2 SBs.


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> The football giants were 2 plays away from being the Buffalo bills.  Dave Tyree's catch & Wes Welker's dropped pass.  The NY D was the MVP of the first of those 2 SBs.



Don't forget Scott Norwood. Giants would have lost that one to Buffalo. But, that was pre Eli.


----------



## SG_Player1974

PeoplesElbow said:


> Dilfer was the most underrated QB I have ever seen.  The guy just won games and everyone hated him I never understood that.



I'm sorry. Was this posted as a joke?


----------



## Monello

Larry Gude said:


> Don't forget Scott Norwood. Giants would have lost that one to Buffalo. But, that was pre Eli.



See if Norwood makes that field goal, Jim Kelly isn't the answer to some trivia question.  Same with Manning Junior.  Drop a catch, make a catch and Eli's a 2 time SB runner up.  

Now how he ever got SB MVP is beyond me.


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> See if Norwood makes that field goal, Jim Kelly isn't the answer to some trivia question.  Same with Manning Junior.  Drop a catch, make a catch and Eli's a 2 time SB runner up.
> 
> Now how he ever got SB MVP is beyond me.



That's the game though, yeah? :shrug: 

I mean, the game against the Pat's, man, who do you give it to if not him, the entire Defense?


----------



## SG_Player1974

Larry Gude said:


> I mean, the game against the Pat's, man, who do you give it to if not him, the entire Defense?



ABSO-FRICKIN-LOUTELY!

Are you going to say that Eli was responsible for stopping the Patriots and winning that SB?


----------



## PeoplesElbow

SG_Player1974 said:


> I'm sorry. Was this posted as a joke?



No,  I am not the only one that thinks so either.  

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/386215-five-under-rated-nfl-players-over-the-last-15-years/page/5


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> ABSO-FRICKIN-LOUTELY!
> 
> Are you going to say that Eli was responsible for stopping the Patriots and winning that SB?



No. Are you going to say the D line was responsible for standing in there, getting free and delivering THE pass PLUS the TD to Plaxico a few plays later?

QB's get too much credit and too much blame.


----------



## Larry Gude

PeoplesElbow said:


> No,  I am not the only one that thinks so either.
> 
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/386215-five-under-rated-nfl-players-over-the-last-15-years/page/5



I always liked him better than Schuler, who we took over Dilfer but, I never felt like he was much underrated. I mean, he was the 6th pick in the draft, a draft very lean on QB's.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Larry Gude said:


> I always liked him better than Schuler, who we took over Dilfer but, I never felt like he was much underrated. I mean, he was the 6th pick in the draft, a draft very lean on QB's.



Not so much underrated by his draft position but the way people talked about him and cast him aside after he managed games that won his team a superbowl. 

I'm not sure I can remember a good QB drafted around that time frame,  all I remember is the famed class of 1984 and then the late 90's picks like Brady and Manning.


----------



## Larry Gude

PeoplesElbow said:


> Not so much underrated by his draft position but the way people talked about him and cast him aside after he managed games that won his team a superbowl.
> 
> I'm not sure I can remember a good QB drafted around that time frame,  all I remember is the famed class of 1984 and then the late 90's picks like Brady and Manning.



I remember him asked to just not turn the ball over. That Raven's team was stunning D wise. Every run seemed to be a fumble or nearly so. Every pass seemed to be tipped or knocked down. He was NOT putting up points leading into the playoffs. He was not the reason they got in. He did just enough and he didn't hurt them at really bad times. It was like 'Raven's field goal!!!' and the D was like "Game."


----------



## Larry Gude

The year before, '93, was Bledsoe and Brunnell. '92 was total dud city. '91 was Favre. '90 was George and then awful. '95 was McNair, Brad Johnson, Kerry Collins (who got killed in that 2000 Super bowl (Dilfer won) for the Giants) '96 was a dud year, '97 Plummer was the class of the draft, Peyton was '98 along with Leif(!!!) and '99 was fair with McNabb and Culpepper and Aaron Brooks. 

It's TOUGH finding a QB who sticks for long. Joe Gibbs won with Theisman, Doug Williams and Rypien. Most everyone else gets their shots with one guy for a time and done. But, it is also hard to build a team like those Redskin teams.


----------



## SG_Player1974

When I think of an "Elite" quarterback, I think of one that, when transplanted to ANY team, automatically makes that team a contender.

Favre, Rodgers, P. Manning, Brady, possibly Rivers..... all of these guys could go to just about any team and one could say "Hey... we have a great shot this year!"

Eli Manning does NOT fit in this category IMHO.


----------



## DoWhat

SG_Player1974 said:


> When I think of an "Elite" quarterback, I think of one that, when transplanted to ANY team, automatically makes that team a contender.
> 
> Favre, Rodgers, P. Manning, Brady, possibly Rivers..... all of these guys could go to just about any team and one could say "Hey... we have a great shot this year!"
> 
> Eli Manning does NOT fit in this category IMHO.


You forgot Tony.


----------



## SG_Player1974

DoWhat said:


> You forgot Tony.



No I didn't!

Tony is a decent quarterback however, he is NOT the field general that the others listed are. I would put 'ole Tony on the same level as Roethlisberger and Wilson. Good SB winning QBs but....... not "Elite"

Maybe even Rivers should be with them... :shrug:


----------



## DoWhat

SG_Player1974 said:


> No I didn't!
> 
> Tony is a decent quarterback however, he is NOT the field general that the others listed are. I would put 'ole Tony on the same level as Roethlisberger and Wilson. Good SB winning QBs but....... not "Elite"
> 
> Maybe even Rivers should be with them... :shrug:





Tony is my Buddy


----------



## Monello

Depending on how Bob plays next week, Gruden may have to reconsider his QB options for next season.


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> Depending on how Bob plays next week, Gruden may have to reconsider his QB options for next season.



Why?


----------



## Monello

Larry Gude said:


> Why?


The team needs wins.  Bob got them a win.  If he wins next week that complicates things.  Gruden clearly wants to go in a different direction.  Washington should draft linemen next time around.  Many of the recent high draft QBs haven't lit the league up.  So far only Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson have had any success.  With the luck the redskins have been having they end up with Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf or Vince Young and end up wasting a pick.


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> The team needs wins.  Bob got them a win.  If he wins next week that complicates things.  Gruden clearly wants to go in a different direction.  Washington should draft linemen next time around.  Many of the recent high draft QBs haven't lit the league up.  So far only Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson have had any success.  With the luck the redskins have been having they end up with Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf or Vince Young and end up wasting a pick.



You feel like he actually won the game or just the fact that the Skins won? He looked like the same lost kid to me and Philly did more to hand it to us than he won it. I was excited for him to get those coupe chances late but, first, we had to punt, then, the pick, the GREAT move by Garcon and yet another roughing call. 

And that one delay call I thought Gruden was gonna come unhinged as Robert wandered around making changes as the clock ticked away. He didn't screw up much but, man, I saw nothing to make me say "Well, maybe..."


----------



## Monello

Larry Gude said:


> I saw nothing to make me say "Well, maybe..."





> But for Gruden and Griffin, games such as this are why they will be together at least one more year, for better or worse. It’s up to Gruden to make it work with Griffin; they successfully used some zone-read play-action passes, in addition to a few regular play-action throws. That’s Griffin’s game -- and needs to be for a while. There will be more frustration; there will be more moments of head-scratching and more big plays.
> 
> It’s up to Griffin to keep making plays and trying to restore his reputation and building on this game. Perfect Saturday? No. Bad? No. A winning effort? Yes.
> 
> “A lot of guys in the locker room told me that everything I have personally been through this year, it was big for me to go out and play like I did and help lead this team to a victory,” Griffin said. “I would say to them, 'Without them, I wouldn’t be able to do it.'"
> 
> No, he would not, and that’s a change. Griffin needs to rely on others -- the run game, the protection, the wideouts -- more than in his rookie year, though even then a lot of elements helped him. If Griffin wants to keep the job beyond next Sunday’s finale against Dallas, it’s what he’ll have to keep doing.
> 
> Saturday was a good team win, and in the end, it was far from just about Griffin. That’s the way it should be. What Saturday did, however, was add another layer to the debate over his future. It’s one that will linger for a while.



The skinny on the skins


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> The skinny on the skins



This is one of those 'it's whether you win or lose, not how you play the game' pieces. If all that matters is that they won the game, then, there we go. To me, in the NFL, the goal is always winning Super Bowls and there are many ways to get that done including losing regular season games while getting better as a team across the board. Robert's inaccuracy and poor mechanics, slow decision making and bad decisions tend to, in my view, not bode well for winning a Superbowl, let alone getting there. He looks like a very talented guy that can and will make some great plays while missing easier ones. Same as when he got here. He took yet another pounding, much of it because our O line is sub par, some of it his apparent lack of pocket awareness. To me, the net picture is, if winning a Super bowl is the goal, you part company with the kid this offseason and move on. But, given this is the Redskins and all the other things that need to happen, build the lines, add depth refrain from the dumpster diving and flash signings, Robert was never the problem any way so, really, whatever.


----------



## Coventry17

As a Cowboys fan, I hope Washington keeps Gruden and continues to trot out Bob Griffin at QB.  That will ensure the irrelevance of the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons for years to come.


----------



## Larry Gude

Coventry17 said:


> As a Cowboys fan, I hope Washington keeps Gruden and continues to trot out Bob Griffin at QB.  That will ensure the irrelevance of the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons for years to come.



That how you felt last off season? The year before? When people were calling for a new head coach? Replace Romo? 

The Redskins have been irrelevant because of the lack of stability and any continuity. You guys hung in there with Garret (year 4 I think) and with Romo while rebuilding the team, letting some stars go to build youth and talent. Right now, you have the big three, as you did with Aikeman, Smith and Irvin BUT you also have a fantastic O line, which you did back then AND your defense is not bad and could soon be very good. 

If the Redskins are every going to be competitive again, it's gonna be because the owner finds some folks he wants to stick with. I don't think RGIII is the guy but, Gruden, I think he might be. In the mean time Snyder HAS to cut loose of Moss, Hall, Orakpo, Williams, Jackson and maybe even Kerrigan in an effort to get lots of picks and build youth and hope to find some up and comers instead of more has beens.


----------



## Coventry17

I was adamant when Bob Griffin was drafted that he was not an NFL ready quarterback.  The success he had his rookie season was fools gold.  He ran a college style, option oriented offense that NFL defenses had not faced in decades.  When the league adjusted, Griffin was not as effective.  Trent Dilfer said he watched the "all 22" from every game Griffin started his final year at Baylor.  He came off his primary receiver to a secondary receiver SIX TIMES!  That's six times all year!  You can tell when watching him....he has the arm strength, a nice throwing motion and is a smart guy.  However, all reports say that he lacks the work ethic to radically change his game, which is what he needs to do to play in the NFL.  He is not a big guy, he can't take the pounding of the sacks and the tackles when he runs.  

Jason Garrett is a Princeton grad, son of a coach (his dad worked for the Cowboys in the 80s) and played in the NFL.  He worked his way up through the coaching ranks.  I don't know that Jay Gruden has that kind of pedigree.  He definitely doesn't have the personality to be a head coach; a head coach should never throw his own players under the bus to the media.  Garrett inherited Wade Phillips' mess; he was tasked with rebuilding the team while still fielding a semi-competitive team.  There was no "stick to" Garrett option; this was always the plan in Dallas.  People want to believe that Jerry Jones sits up on his throne and runs the draft and signs the free agents he wants and meddles in the coaching.  The truth of the matter is, the head coach (along with Stephen Jones) runs the personnel side of things.  Jerry runs the business.  It's no coincidence that Dallas drafted poorly during the Wade Phillips debacle (the 2009 draft is one of the worst for any team in NFL history) and has drafted well with Jason Garrett.  Out of the Cowboys last 6 first round picks, 5 are first or second team All-Pro this year.  The one who isn't is Mo Claiborne, who was a player Jerry was enamored with and orchestrated a draft day trade to go get.  Jerry tried to hire to Garrett for the front office in the late 90s when it was clear the team was going to cut him.  Jason wanted to keep playing football, so he went to the Giants.  The Giants subsequently tried to hire him for the front office when he was leaving there!  Troy Aikman has said that Jason Garrett taught him how to do film study and he wouldn't have been the quarterback he was without him.  

As for Romo...if he played for any other team in the NFL he would be one of the league's poster boys.  Hispanic heritage, undrafted free agent from a small school in Illinois, family man who does a lot in the community, doesn't do endorsement deals, soft spoken and humble.  However, since he plays for Dallas, his accomplishments and failures get painted with a different brush.  I read an article today from the Richmond Times Dispatch that said Aaron Rodgers is a Hall of Famer right now and that "time is running out" for Tony Romo.  However, a quick study of their career numbers finds the two almost identical, except that Tony has about a season's worth more starts than Rodgers and thereby a few more compiled yards, TDs, etc.  Rodgers has won a Super Bowl, but players don't win Super Bowls, teams do.  If Patrick Crayton doesn't drop an easy pass late in the 4th quarter against the Giants in 2007, he runs 90 yards for a score, Dallas advances to the NFC Championship and we have a different narrative.  Yet, Romo is labeled the "choker" for losing that game.  Fourth highest rated QB in NFL history.  Highest rated 4th quarter QB in NFL history.  Just had the highest QB rating for December in NFL history.  Most 4th quarter comebacks in the league since 2006, including leading the league with 5 this year.  5th lowest interception percentage in NFL history.  This guy wasn't even invited to the NFL combine.  Two guys recognized his talent and wanted to sign him:  Sean Payton, who convinced Parcells to bring him to Dallas and Mike Shanahan (the guy Washington ran out of town) who tried to bring him to Denver.  Tony has done things that have made me mental over the years.  So did Aikman, so did Danny White...so did Staubach, for crying out loud.  Staubach's last pass was to Herbert Scott, the offensive guard, as the Rams were bouncing Roger's head of the turf for the last of his 22 concussions.  The only former Cowboys QB who I've ever heard speak in less than glowing terms about Romo is Steve Buerlein, who even gave him begrudging praise last week on NFL radio.

As for the Redskins, they are the very definition of a dysfunctional franchise.  Dan Snyder is not just a bad owner; by everything I've heard or read about him, he's a deplorable human being.  He fosters an aura of paranoia everywhere he goes.  He's had radio DJ's fired because they were critical of him.  He has sued newspapers for libel for daring to speak bad about him.  I don't think Snyder will ever change (that die is cast too deeply) and I don't think he'll ever sell the team.  Washington's hope is that eventually the league would step in and strip him of his duties; however, judging by the fact that the NFL allowed Al Davis to insanely run the Raiders into the ground, I doubt they'll ever step in with Snyder.  It tooks Dallas 4 or 5 years to rebuild (a process that is still going on) and I imagine it would take Washington at least that long.  I just don't see the franchise being patient enough to wait that long.


----------



## Larry Gude

Coventry17 said:


> I was adamant when Bob Griffin was drafted that he was not an NFL ready quarterback.  The success he had his rookie season was fools gold.  .



Wow. Where to start? 

Totally agree with Griffin. I thought it was crazy to trade so much for a guy with such a thin resume but, as a fan, you hope folks know what they're doing and you praise Shanahan, well, he was on board here at that draft and we, fans, were under the impression he was in charge or, at the very least, could have veto'd that trade and pick. Of course, because we live in Dan's world, we're pretty sure Snyder wanted it, period, and that Shanahan, like any other coach in Redskins land, will only have so much authority over players. So, to skip ahead to Snyder, you'll get no argument there, either. All I say in his favor is that he does want to win and he will spend money. I never got over his firing of Frank Herzog, think Larry Micheal's in the epitome of a Snyder guy, turd polisher, 24/7, did not like the culture of fear and intimidation he brought to the team be it radio, TV or print and so on. Lastly, on him, is his team, his toy and he wants to play with it so, there will always be that. The league has no problem with him because he brought even more money making to the table. 

As far as Romo, if he had the same resume in playing for any other team, he'd have the same rep; bad mistakes at bad times, the fumble on the kick v. Seattle, etc. I agree he gets too much blame and, like any QB he gets too much credit. Simple fact of the matter is teams MUST have at least good O lines if not one of the best and teams must have at least good D lines if not one of the best, to do well in the play offs and to win SB's. Tony has not had that. I give Dallas, Garret, whomever, all the credit for building your O line and having the guts to ditch star players in order to build the team younger and deeper. That's how you over come the injuries, serious ones, you guys have faced. That's the recipe; really good lines, depth. It makes ANY qb a good one and a good one great. I've long considered Romo a great QB so, now, he has the team and the chance and, as for your analysis, it couldn't be a better test; Dallas v. Greenbay, in the playoffs, coming right up. 

The one thing I have to say about this year is that I thought putting Romo back in against us, the Skins, in the first game, killed your year, risking his further injury, against a division foe that always seems to be able to hit him and/or hurt him, in a game your backup was playing well and probably, in think, would have won. When Tony came back in, it knocked off the rhythm you guys were building. 

Last comment; on the field Romo comes off as a whiny cry baby who does not seem to be a 'team' guy. His demeanor just seems that way.


----------



## b23hqb

Hey, Redskins - trade up to the #1 with the Bucs and give us four or five picks that can start for us.......and you can keep Griffin.


----------



## Beta

Coventry17 said:


> As for Romo...if he played for any other team in the NFL he would be one of the league's poster boys.


WHAT?!?!?!?!

You must be the most blind Cowboy-homer "everyone hates us" fan on the planet.  You've got to be KIDDING me.  The COWBOYS are the team that gets propped up.  Remember Jimmy Johnson/Troy Aikman/Emmitt Smith/etc?  You know, the guys that probably made you a Cowboys fan instead of rooting for your hometown Redskins?  Wow.  Never thought I'd see a Cowboys fan, from one of "America's" teams, complain about how their players are looked at unfairly.  Wow.  

Romo is a decent QB who had a reputation for choking.  That's why Rodgers, Brady, Manning(s), Roethlisburger, Wilson, etc are who they are and Romo is behind them.  Super Bowl winning QBs who came to PLAY in December and into the playoffs, carrying their teams to victory, instead of whiffing year after year.


----------



## Larry Gude

Beta said:


> Romo is a decent QB who had a reputation for choking.  That's why Rodgers, Brady, Manning(s), Roethlisburger, Wilson, etc are who they are and Romo is behind them.  Super Bowl winning QBs who came to PLAY in December and into the playoffs, carrying their teams to victory, instead of whiffing year after year.



Right but, to be fair, those other guys had better teams around them than Romo has which I think was the point. I mean, Romo QB'ing, say, the 49'ers? Not hard to argue they'd have at least one SB over the last 3-4 years. Rogers SB team beat an amazing Steelers team and he did it with an outstanding O line, solid D and some super skill people. 

Put another way, do any of those guys have a SB if they've been QB in Dallas the last 6-8 years? No way. Agreed?


----------



## SG_Player1974

Well... Romo has the best running back in the NFL this year. One of the best wide receivers in the game, a good to great O-line, and a decent defense.

So... when he does choke.... what will be his excuse?


----------



## Grumpy

Makes ya wonder how Brady's career might have gone if the tuck-rule hadn't been invented on the spot 10 or so years ago.


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> Well... Romo has the best running back in the NFL this year. One of the best wide receivers in the game, a good to great O-line, and a decent defense.
> 
> So... when he does choke.... what will be his excuse?



I don't think he will. Their success STARTS with that O line. He has never had anything approaching this. Murry became the best RB because of that line, not the other way around. Tony has more than enough skill people, Whitten, a monster in Bryant, the little white dude everyone has these days as a Welker type plus the other fast kid. I DO think it's going to be on Romo but, I think he has all he needs to more than handle Green Bay. From there, he'll face a tough test if it is the Seahawks. Tony has 'choked' because, like Peyton, it has mostly been on him. Too much. Gotta have help. Lots of it.


----------



## Larry Gude

Grumpy said:


> Makes ya wonder how Brady's career might have gone if the tuck-rule hadn't been invented on the spot 10 or so years ago.



That's a great question to ponder; did that win give them the momentum to get on top and stay there or, would they have been in the mix the following year as well?


----------



## SG_Player1974

Well.... you see what the Lions put on Romo in the first half of their game. The answer to beating the Cowboys is PRESSURE ON ROMO! Plain and simple.

If GB and/or the Seahawks can maintain constant pressure on Romo when he is back to pass.... GAME OVER!!


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> Well.... you see what the Lions put on Romo in the first half of their game. The answer to beating the Cowboys is PRESSURE ON ROMO! Plain and simple.
> 
> If GB and/or the Seahawks can maintain constant pressure on Romo when he is back to pass.... GAME OVER!!



Yeah and the Pack can't apply that sort of pressure. Detroit did it with their amazing front 4. Pack don't have that. That's how the Lions sorta controlled Bryant; no need to blitz, double him all game. Pack has to blitz, that means Whitten and it means one of the wide outs in single. I'll take Romo in that every time.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Larry Gude said:


> Yeah and the Pack can't apply that sort of pressure. Detroit did it with their amazing front 4. Pack don't have that. That's how the Lions sorta controlled Bryant; no need to blitz, double him all game. Pack has to blitz, that means Whitten and it means one of the wide outs in single. I'll take Romo in that every time.



Did you see the game? Detroit got to Romo with LB and CB blitz packages almost every time! 

GB let loose Clay Mattews or any one of the CBs or Safeties and it will have the same effect.


----------



## b23hqb

SG_Player1974 said:


> Did you see the game? Detroit got to Romo with LB and CB blitz packages almost every time!
> 
> GB let loose Clay Mattews or any one of the CBs or Safeties and it will have the same effect.



Not necessarily, but it really doesn't matter. Green Bay is an adequate defense, especially at home. But Rogers on one leg, essentially? Rogers is Rogers, and he will not quit.

He was my QB for the season, and I hope his torn muscle in the calf (I know, only half of one of his legs) holds up, but then next week @ Seattle......

Dallas goes down.........


----------



## b23hqb

Grumpy said:


> Makes ya wonder how Brady's career might have gone if the tuck-rule hadn't been invented on the spot 10 or so years ago.



Poor Tom Brady. Never had a chance to succeed in the NFL. No other player, or team, has EVER had a call go their way. The referees are PERFECT, just like all players never screw up or commit a foul. 

That's how teams move on, and real teams don't dwell on it, especially those that the calls go against.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

b23hqb said:


> Poor Tom Brady. Never had a chance to succeed in the NFL. No other player, or team, has EVER had a call go their way. The referees are PERFECT, just like all players never screw up or commit a foul.
> 
> That's how teams move on, and real teams don't dwell on it, especially those that the calls go against.



He had white privilege.


----------



## Hank

Dallas D is going straight for that calf.... BooooYaaa!


----------



## Beta

Larry Gude said:


> Right but, to be fair, those other guys had better teams around them than Romo has which I think was the point. I mean, Romo QB'ing, say, the 49'ers? Not hard to argue they'd have at least one SB over the last 3-4 years. Rogers SB team beat an amazing Steelers team and he did it with an outstanding O line, solid D and some super skill people.
> 
> Put another way, do any of those guys have a SB if they've been QB in Dallas the last 6-8 years? No way. Agreed?



What???  The Cowboys have had plenty of talent when compared to other teams and that was even before this season.  How are the ex-Green Bay WRs doing away from Rodgers?  How did the Colts do the season after they lost Manning?  Brady had no OL, WRs, or RB this year.  The best QBs make the offense great, consistently!  If you need a top talent offense to have a good season then you're only an average to good QB.  That's where Romo is in the QB pecking order, because he has better weapons than virtually anyone in the league and had a decent defense to support him...but it certainly helps the defense when you control the football, which is on the offense.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd be curious to hear about all of the earth-shattering offseason moves Dallas made that suddenly turned them into a talented football team from the one that couldn't have gone to a Super Bowl with someone like Tom Brady (who has consistently had less talent around him for years).


----------



## Larry Gude

Beta said:


> What???  The Cowboys have had plenty of talent when compared to other teams and that was even before this season.  How are the ex-Green Bay WRs doing away from Rodgers?  How did the Colts do the season after they lost Manning?  Brady had no OL, WRs, or RB this year.  The best QBs make the offense great, consistently!  If you need a top talent offense to have a good season then you're only an average to good QB.  That's where Romo is in the QB pecking order, because he has better weapons than virtually anyone in the league and had a decent defense to support him...but it certainly helps the defense when you control the football, which is on the offense.
> 
> If you think I'm wrong, I'd be curious to hear about all of the earth-shattering offseason moves Dallas made that suddenly turned them into a talented football team from the one that couldn't have gone to a Super Bowl with someone like Tom Brady (who has consistently had less talent around him for years).



To an extent. Tom Brady does not make the playoffs as Redskins QB. Agreed? Probably doesn't survive the first 4 games. Agreed? Peyton doesn't stay upright for long as our QB. 

Rogers, Brady, Peyton, there best seasons have ALL been with very good O lines. To prove this out, Romo didn't get better. Dez didn't get better. Whitten and what's his face, the RB, didn't get better. The O line got much better and the D got better by cutting some stars and adding some young depth.


----------



## Larry Gude

Beta said:


> If you think I'm wrong, I'd be curious to hear about all of the earth-shattering offseason moves Dallas made that suddenly turned them into a talented football team from the one that couldn't have gone to a Super Bowl with someone like Tom Brady (who has consistently had less talent around him for years).



That's the thing; there are NO earth shattering moves. There is simply adding youth and depth. Look at Bree's. He was good and became great because Nola built a really good defense AND got him a bunch of good young people to throw the ball to.


----------



## Beta

Larry Gude said:


> To an extent. Tom Brady does not make the playoffs as Redskins QB. Agreed? Probably doesn't survive the first 4 games. Agreed? Peyton doesn't stay upright for long as our QB.
> 
> Rogers, Brady, Peyton, there best seasons have ALL been with very good O lines. To prove this out, Romo didn't get better. Dez didn't get better. Whitten and what's his face, the RB, didn't get better. The O line got much better and the D got better by cutting some stars and adding some young depth.


I don't know if that's necessarily the case.  Like I said, the Colts had minimal personnel changes from when Peyton played to the year he got hurt to the following year.  Yet they went from 10-6 to 2-14 to 11-5.  How does a team do that if the QB doesn't make that much of an impact?  There's a reason why the QB now gets all of the attention and the NFL is considered a QB-driven league.  The Steelers went 6-10 in 2003 and 15-1 in 2004 once they found a QB.  The Broncos went from a decent 8-8 to a Super Bowl contending 13-3.  Cinci went from 4-12 to 9-7 with a solid QB (Dalton) at the helm.  Do you honestly think Green Bay has had top talent in the NFL every year since Brett Favre became a starter?  Do you think the Patriots have had top talent since Brady became the starter?  Did the Colts magically have NOBODY for one season but have otherwise had top talent since ~1998?  New Orleans went from 3-13 to 10-6 when they got Brees and have been pretty good ever since.

It's a QB-driven league and the top QBs rise to the top.  Their teams come along for the ride.  I know that you haven't personally watched a team with top QB play in all likelihood (as a Skins fan), but that's how the league has worked for 20+ years since Marino, Kelly, Montana, and others started the QB revolution.



Larry Gude said:


> That's the thing; there are NO earth shattering moves. There is simply adding youth and depth. Look at Bree's. He was good and became great because Nola built a really good defense AND got him a bunch of good young people to throw the ball to.



They add youth and depth every year.  Brees became good in San Diego his final year.  It had nothing to do with an infusion of talent.  Then he took a TERRIBLE New Orleans team (3-13) and won the division the next season.  Why?  It wasn't because New Orleans was flush with talent.  He turned a bad team around.  Great QBs do that, regardless of their protection or the players on their team.  It's all excuses.  I think I remember recently hearing about the terrible OL in front of Rivers, but he gets the ball out so quickly that protection doesn't matter.  Roethlisburger is running for his life all the time, but those are the plays where he escapes the pressure, extends the play, and hits the big one.  You're giving a random what-if, I'm giving you example after example that proves my point.  Even your attempted example (Brees) helps prove my point.

It's all about the QB, bout the QB (not his teammates).


----------



## Monello

In the 1970s, after the AFL & NFL merger, there were 26 teams.  Now there are 32 teams.  With each team fielding 53 players, today you have over 300 players in the league that would not otherwise be playing if the league did not expand.  These players can be considered lower ability players.  This dilutes the talent level of play on the field.  Salary limits also further limit team's ability to stockpile talent.  Free agency further leads to high rates of player turnover from year to year.


----------



## Larry Gude

Beta said:


> I don't know if that's necessarily the case.  :



QB's matter. A lot. That said, do you think the Redskins make the playoffs this past season with Brady or Manning under center?


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> In the 1970s, after the AFL & NFL merger, there were 26 teams.  Now there are 32 teams.  With each team fielding 53 players, today you have over 300 players in the league that would not otherwise be playing if the league did not expand.  These players can be considered lower ability players.  This dilutes the talent level of play on the field.  Salary limits also further limit team's ability to stockpile talent.  Free agency further leads to high rates of player turnover from year to year.



Disagree with the diluted talent argument. Sort of. With a larger roster you have more players, yes, and, on the surface, less talent but, if they go back to, say, 65 man and have 12 more guys developing over the years, a guy who, as a rookie, wouldn't make the cut on a 53 man, but does on a 65 and, at, say, year 3 or 4 has become, at the very least, a kid that knows his teams plays, the quality of play goes up. Or, at least doesn't fall as much when a guy goes down. 

As is, the rookie who may be a little faster, a little stronger, is gonna stick over a kid who might be the better player in a few years given time.


----------



## Grumpy

b23hqb said:


> Poor Tom Brady. Never had a chance to succeed in the NFL. No other player, or team, has EVER had a call go their way. The referees are PERFECT, just like all players never screw up or commit a foul.
> 
> That's how teams move on, and real teams don't dwell on it, especially those that the calls go against.


 Sorry you missed the point...


----------

